Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 29 May 1996 12:13:19 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Mike Frank wonders:
" but the fight over depp had nothing
whatever to do with art or meaning or value or even with movies as such; it
concerned nothing more than an actor's decision to pursue his career in one
way and not another . . . i hardly want to minimize the role of $$$$, only to
find out why some people care about such matters as these"
Some of it may have to do with "false aura" of the star system that Walter
Benjamin complains about; undoubtedly, there are other factors.
But one thing that may be involved in such matters is the extent to which
a star's performance matches or fails to match our expectations of the
type of portrayal he or she makes in other films. When Mel Gibson played
Hamlet, a good deal of critical (and probably audience) attention was
on whether he could carry off the role at all. One has come to expect
Johnny Depp to play idiosyncratic roles in off-beat pictures (which is to
the taste of some and not others). When he's in more standard fare, many
might wonder if he's selling out (or, alternately, finally coming to his
senses). When Lawrence Olivier appeared in THE ENTERTAINER, some critics
thought the role beneath him; ditto his appearances in THE JAZZ SINGER and
THE BETSY, but for different reasons.
We might bring similar expectations, concerns and objections to someone
appearing in a play or an opera, but those performances are of necessity
ephemeral, while film performances are inscribed for the duration of the
negative (or tape).
These are just some observations, hardly conclusions. It is a topic worht
further thought.
Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
|
|
|